CJMorgan,

Thank you very, very much for the tinyURL link you gave above, http://tiny.cc/uZZa2 . That link when expanded, becomes this:

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/uk-and-international-news/2009/06/21/drugs-probe-extradition-scot-accused-of-sex-attacks-on-six-year-old-girl-78057-21459748/

Can you please tell us CJ, where you got that tinyURL, and also this tinyURL, http://tiny.cc/jzxYg , given in your post of Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 8:33:49 AM? It could be very important.

I knew I could depend upon OLO to winkle out the connections in this matter. No sooner have we begun than someone provides the connection between this case and the proposed Polanski extradition from Switzerland. I knew it had to be there, but now we have it in detail! The US seems to so desperately want, (or is it that the UK so desperately wants to get rid of?), Brian Howes, that they brand him, IN THE PRESS, as being a kiddy-fiddler!

A kiddy-fiddler! Suspend all judgement. Switch brain off. Must be guilty, because Polanski definitely is. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

This libel of Brian Howes (that of the Sunday Mail and Norman Silvester) explains the latest twist that has occurred with the Polanski case in Switzerland: the US is now claiming that it was the SWISS Justice Ministry that first contacted the US when it learned of Polanski's intended visit to Zurich, not the other way around! Some of the more perceptive observers of that matter were questioning the TIMING of Polanski's arrest, and this now-promoted aspect of child sexual assault in connection with the Howes' extradition provides a very good explanation.

Belly, Squeers, and others, be very careful not to jump to conclusions in this matter. It is very early days. The indications that some relatively senior British police officers may have had ulterior motives for essentially fitting-up Brian Howes for this extradition provide a very good reason why the Howes' should be extradited to, and face trial in, Australia.

Australia's is the only jurisdiction without a prejudiced vested interest.

Hi Forrest. I agree, the extradition treaty between the USA and the UK seems to be an appalling agreement - at least from the perspective of UK citizens.

However, I don't think that the case of Brian Howes is a particularly good example with which to garner support for its removal. The more I look into his case and background, the less sympathy I have for him. I suspect that many other reasonable people would feel much the same.

I found the links by doing a simple search on Google News in response to your erroneous claim on your other thread that the media in the UK had been silenced with respect to Howes' case, then went to the Tiny URL website to shrink them to something less cumbersome.

I appreciate that you think you've found some underhand conspiracy by the US government - however, I suspect that it's more to do with the US authorities having a strong antipathy to illegal drug manufacturers and child abusers.

<< Australia's is the only jurisdiction without a prejudiced vested interest. >>

Forrest, Australia's jurisdiction is not relevant, thus far, and I doubt will ever be, to the Howes case.

Now, is anyone concerned that AUSTRALIA still has anti-terrorist laws that means anyone, including you Forrest, can be held without charge or even recourse if evidence is lacking?

CJ Morgan

The news you uncovered, while disturbing, is completely irrelevant to the current situation the Howes are in and would not be presented in a trial based on the illegal export of drugs.

Hello Mr Morgan,

How do you dare to call me a child abuser? on the basis of a Sunday Mail article?

My wife and I never sold drugs we sold chemicals up to 60 chemicals around the world with no complaint from any other country.

The chemicals the US say we sold the US are Legal in the US, They just need to be registered if you sell them, How are we to of known if they would be misused if we had no indication of misuse here in the UK?

You never mention that it is my wife and I being extradited to the US not just myself.

You have formed the opinion that I am an abuser of children without evidence. This makes you no better than the US who expect extradition without evidence.

Forrest is right the mention of child abuse is enough to take away sympathy as is intended by those in power. And you Mr Morgan produce the exact reaction that is expected which is very sad.

Do you not wonder why my 5 children are sleeping in our home if the supposed information you discovered is true?

You might try and research a little more before coming to your conclusions. There is recorded evidence on my sites that show that we have not committed an extradition offence. If you give me your IP address I will gladly see if you have visited the evidence?

You are not concerned about me, are you remotely concerned about my wife and children?

Again as Fractelle said it's not relevant but is very relevant when used in the way you seek to discredit me.

I hope that the people reading this thread are more open minded about police corruption and false media reporting.

Hi Fractelle - you're absolutely correct, of course. The allegations of child sexual abuse against Mr Howes are not relevant to the indictments that are the basis of the application to extradite him to the USA.

They do, however, influence whether or not I could be bothered to take up this guy's cause - which is why I asked him if the allegations I stumbled across are true. You'll note that he's studiously avoided answering the question I asked.

I think the big issue here is the way that law enforcement agencies will utilise any legislative tool available to them in order to bring people before the courts. My concern about the UK-USA extradition arrangement is that it was enacted in the hysteria of the 'War Against Terror' but is being applied to a very different kind of alleged crime. This is why your example of the young couple from Cairns is relevant - i.e. because the police found the mifepristone packaging in their home while searching for illicit recreational drugs. Having found nothing else to charge the young couple with, the police decided to arrest and charge them with the very dubious crime of procuring their own medical abortion.

Forrest Gumpp has done us all a service by highlighting the necessity of us being resistant to efforts by States to opportunistically legislate against human rights.

Before I write Mr Howe completely as being worth supporting - in favour of issues that are far more immediate and apparently more deserving - I would like Mr Howe to answer the question I asked of him about the allegations of child sexual abuse against him in the USA.

I'd also like him to say whether or not the evidence about misleading packaging of the presursor chemicals he sold into the USA, proffered to the Grand Jury in his indictment, are true. Did he, knowing that the chemicals he sold and from which he profited substantially could be used as precursor ingredients in the manufacture of methamphetamine, knowingly misrepresent the contents of his consignments to the USA in order to avoid official scrutiny?

Dang - I clicked the wrong button before I'd finished editing.

Mr Howe, I didn't accuse you of being a child sexual abuser - apparently someone in Arkansas did, according to the media report I quoted.

I asked you whether you had avoided prosecution for that alleged crime by leaving Arkansas, as claimed in the report.

A straight answer would be appreciated.